Political posts

November 6, 2012

Last evening, I posted a video and a blog item related to the U.S. economy and election, meant to stimulate a one-time discussion on a subject that is normally off-topic on KurzweilAI. Some readers found them offensive or irrelevant to the science/technology focus of KurzweilAI. I have now removed them, with apologies to anyone who was offended. It was solely my decision to post them, based on my own political and economic interests. — Amara D. Angelica, Editor

UPDATE Nov. 7, 2012:

In response to requests, here are links to original sources for the video and article. For perspective, these are from posts by prominent liberal sources:

1. Amara, are these Ray’s views as well? He hired you to be his voice on this website.

2. Ray, as a fellow Jew I am offended. Using your website to promote propaganda against a certain race is offensive.

3. Political thought based on coherent thought is needed to further discussion. This video does not do this and diminishes the singularity theory. Is the singularity theory based on an emotional argument , or science.

To,
The Editor,
Why should / did you apologize? I do not see anything wrong with putting up political posts once in a while. Everything, including science and technology, has a political aspect to it; economics does so, too. Anyone who has a problem with the posts should not read them.
That said, I do think that the quality of the content posted by you was mediocre, at best. Maybe, you could work on improving the quality, thereof? Also, I do not see how making snide remarks at the teeth of Chinese students helps us in any way. A strategy best avoided.

Truth is factually based. This to is interpreted. Look at the supreme court. It tries to see things on a factual bases, but is still biases toward affiliations. It’s a constant struggle to perceive the truth, but it should be taken by everyone. The best way to be balanced is to try and see the other perspectives and understand them. To do that well you need to suppress your own biases. You have to posit that you might be wrong, and accept that the other opinions are hinged on something.

@Bri: I think surpressing is such a typical western notion (when applied to oneself).Reminds me of the 19th century, stiff upper lips etc and the hailing of willpower.Instead of forcing it, one should logically line out why he wants to perceive the truth, learn about biases, and then just notice, accept without judgement when he fell prey to a bias.Of course, after accepting comes correcting.After a while, this becomes automatic (at least concerning unwanted feelings).

These biases aren’t necessarely you, and can partly be dissolved (those that are nurture) this way.Others (like the planning fallacy) can be overcome by heuristics or algorithms (depending on the complexity of the task involved).I guess one could get a lot of mileage out of this, without having to strain so much.

I’m a little disappointed that the political posts were deleted — on a website like this that delves into the technological singularity, politics are intertwined….politics is something we simply cannot get away from, no matter how much we feel we want too — it’s just too important. I can understand hoping to come to a website like this where we can only hear about the wonderful exponentially growing technologies, politics will play a key role in especially our ability to actually take advantage of them.

That being said, on principle, while I can understand the disinterest in seeing anything that isn’t purely science-related on this website, you have to remember that the ramifications of all these advances will affect everything….and yes, that especially includes politics — so if anything, I imagine the political articles will keep on coming faster.

The film and response by James Fallows are both legitimate
IF PRESENTED TOGETHER. Fallows shows the film
for what it is, a obvious piece of propaganda typical of
an Andrew Breitbart. All the things attributed to the downfall of the US have been used successfully by the Chinese. If this were a Fox “News”
forum that last would be evidence of self incrimination.
Hahha, precisely…these are the methods of Marxists &
Chicoms which you favor & blah blah blah circular
non-reason. Chris Hedges has a liberal black & white purity problem
& writes like a right wing plant intent on embarrassing the present day left.
present day liberals. IOW, half the time he’s an embarrassment
and not b/c he was driven self immolation

I relish serious discussions on public policy and comparative religion, however, on this site I would like to see their connection with science and technology. For example, which public policies are hindering or assisting in furthering some beneficial or non-beneficial sci/tech; and, how does religion play into this drama? I, too, would just skip over someone’s general political views that do not make the connection.

I have seen political idealogy invade and infect scientific research on global warming and climate change. Note that I use both terms as different folks approve or disapprove of one or the other with both now considered mutually exclusive political terms rather than scientific terms. Try discussing zygote, embryo, or “personhood.” Try discussing flouridation…or vaccinations, etc. We here need to not encourage the further politization and dumbing down of science. Present exciting and interesting ideas and any good substantiating research and let us take it from there in our personal and professional lives, and especially our imaginations.

Right, harmil22, “political ideology [has] invaded and infected scientific research” since the dark ages. Remember when the Grand Inquisitor took Galileo down to the dungeon to show him the tools of the torturer? It was all religious politics. Only a few remember the names of those who threatened Galileo. Most of today’s educated people know of Galileo.

Corporations are people. Artificial people. First is political and economical.
The second is technological, political and economical. Corporations are peopled. People are corpoReal. Most if not all politicians/tacticians have embraced technology as a necessary good or bad. A major trend in science and technology is its widening base. More and more ‘old tech’ is getting new uses or adapted to fit new activities. And ‘new tech’ (newer) is being applied to to the old, the new and the out of the blue problems, solutions, as well as many pursuits, e.g. recreations, hobbies and other commitments, studies, interests and politics of persuasion.

As a political question I simply ask this. How did we get from this: Life Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness … Government of the people by the people and for the people. To this: Corporations are considered citizens for the purpose of free speech and may spend as much of their money as they decide is useful to influence the result of an election which is supposed to enable the citizens to control their political lives and freedoms. The citizen/slaves have given away the only power (the use of $), which can protect them from their worst nightmare. The mistake? empowering one unelected arm of government (the Judicial) unlimited and lifetime power to be the final arbiters of the country’s lifeblood, their philosophy (laws) which govern their present and future behavior. Citizens are thereby reduced to consumers. Read this to mean those whose purpose is to enrich those corporations and their stockholders. If America is to return to it’s former glory and financial freedom this glaring error must be somehow corrected. On 11 6 12 Montana made the first legal step in the right direction.

I look forward to reading the Kurzweil articles because they are NOT political. Science and Technology represent the expression of our innate and wonderful Intelligence. Politics is just the opossitte. Leave politics for the other Newsletters that cater to that kind of competitive, fear based thinking.

Amara: Thanks for helping to keep the scientific focus. I admit that I haven’t read the removed video/blog. But I also admit that I’ve been somewhat dismayed by my perception of a drift away. There are so many other places I can go to read other threads.

Politics without principles is dangerous. Science without religion is blind by Einstein. All material progress and prosperity obtained until to date, we owe to science and technology, can anyone deny this?

I don’t get what the big deal is about an occasional controversial or political post. We all have the right to speak freely, but no one has a right to be shielded from being offended. Whether I agree with the posts or not is irrelevant, I want to knowwhat everyone really thinks.

@George:
I’m under the impression that many people who are into science and technology dislike politics.They visit websites like this or subscribe to newsletters in order to get specific information efficently.Without wading through other media.Thus, they expect a certain content and none other, since they could as well read a newspaper if they wanted a mix.

“We all have the right to speak freely, but no one has a right to be shielded from being offended.”

Yeah, but in practice people can vote with their feet or “clicks”, dislikes and “unscubscribes”.

Tel that to a climatologist. As far as I’m concerned this site can post whatever they want, I’m grown up enough to distinguish what is right and what is wrong. So long as this site doesn’t try to push a particular view, they should be able to post what they believe, as long as they say it’s what they believe and not claimed as truth.

Many (most?) people who are interested in the singularity and related issues come from a libertarian (liberal for non-americans like me) perspective and so come to expect the occasional political post on sites like this.

There are nice forums on this site where all kinds of people are talking about politics and various other subjects.

Personally I come to the front page for science/tech/future trends(related to tech) news as this is one of the better sites on this area however I have no interest to see what the editor or any ofther of kurzweilai staff thinks about politics, trying to mix tech with politics will divide your reader base in my opinion.

Its not about being offended, its more about being annoyed.

Btw John Galt is dead and buried in a mass grave along with other extremes such as fascism, nazis, communists and other extreme ideoligies.

1. Politics is a disgusting dirty business and minus war, will always result in the lowest common denominator winning. People don’t vote for what is right or ideas, they vote for ‘things.’ They vote for ‘free education’ without a thought or concern about what that actually means, They vote for ‘free’ healthcare with as much thought. They vote for what they perceive as their short term interests and those interests are shaped by the political culture and the culture at large.

2. Every individual has a right to his or her life. No individual has a right to anyone else’s life. Everyone would agree with this until they step into the polling booth and all that dissolves as the voter is awash in a sea of Marxist Mush, cultural pressure, their own moral character or lack of it and the bullshit fed to them by the press and the candidates. We sanctify the one man one vote principle which is a good principle but the reality is that the majority of people pulling that lever are actively seeking someone who will tell them which way to pull it. What does that do for the ‘one man, one vote’ mythology. If you’re an empty headed bubble brain who can be persuaded by what a politician says, do you really deserve to vote?

3. Romney and Ryan lost. That’s the least of it. Freedom and Fiscal Sanity lost. And that is the heart of it. The politicians are simply symptomatic of what people believe. Ideas have consequences, regardless of what one might wish. The party of ignoring consequences is in ascendancy and that is really symptomatic of the ideas of the time. Within every human being there are contradictory needs and impulses. There is a need to weave them together into a coherent whole that allows the organism to survive. Follow the impulse for safety too much and you don’t crawl out of the cave. Take too many risks and you end up dead. Morality is the code we hammer out that helps us guide our ship of life between Scylla and Charybdis. It’s the story of the ant and the grasshopper. The grasshopper’s appeal to the crowd is winning. But winter is coming (in the form of complete fiscal/monetary collapse) and all these grasshopper fans are going to come face to face with the reality of thinking they can live off of the energy and talent of other people, that the collective has some special ability to overcome reality. Of course, they won’t learn anything but they will shut up, and do what they are told when the heirs of the Progressive movement rise up and tell them those damn ants are being selfish and they need to be taught a lesson. Obama has just the moral and psychological character to be a dictator.

4. The ‘American’ experiment in self-governance has come to an end with the 2nd election of Barack Obama. Not because of him, for sure. And not because of Progressivism and the rot it brings with it but because human beings are more susceptible to being conned by false promises then anyone cares to admit. For centuries the world was an ugly place: life was short, often unspeakably brutal with flashes of what could be here and there always swamped by the struggle for power between the brute and the mystic. Individuals were objects on a chess board to be used by the power elites in any way they desired. The enlightenment gave rise to a set of ideas that caught hold and found their ultimate expression in the US Constitution. Hardly perfect but the best that humanity had been able to conceive of to date. What gave those ideals currency is people believing them. People no longer believe them like the last two hacks appointed to the Supreme Court by Lord Obama. Without a belief in those principles the way is open for the cold dead hand of Power to once again be centralized and this time there will be no United States of America to stop the process of centralization. The US was the last obstacle to the planet imploding on a feast of power hungry rat bastards carving out pieces of the human population for control.

I hold these things to be self-evident.

1. People in the collective are mobs and mobs are assholes that always act in ways that cause destruction, death and misery.
2. We have lost our moral compass that allowed us to harness the mob and decentralize power towards the individual where sane, rational thought has a chance.
3. The world is a dangerous place and moral vacuums won’t stay vacuums for long.
4. The virulent policies of Islam, the UN and the EU will find the vacuum and take full advantage of it for growing a pestilence that will march across this planet leaving death and destruction in it’s wake like nothing we have seen before.
5. Those of us who thought we could take freedom for granted are soon to find out just how wrong we were.

Daniel, very well stated. I agree with your analysis. People want a stronger more powerful government to be involved in their lives from cradle to grave. Obama is openly against the Constitution as it stands. Indeed, if the Supreme Courst becomes more libera,l they will likely overturn Ricci v. DeStefano.

@ Daniel:
“4. The virulent policies of Islam, the UN and the EU will find the vacuum and take full advantage of it for growing a pestilence that will march across this planet leaving death and destruction in it’s wake like nothing we have seen before.”

MIT’s Technology Review has gotten the same sort of reaction when they have gone political. I’m willing to bet other technology sites do, too. It’s not that we think political views should be censored. It’s that there is a proper place for that, and a technology oriented site is not it. If we want political views, we go to political sites. Using a site we count on for technology updates as a pundit for pushing out your own personal views about politics is a huge turnoff. This is where I come to escape political bias and propaganda and focus on more interesting things. Thank you for removing the political articles. However, there is a proper way to approach politics on a site like this. Articles about the technology of politics (advances in voting methods, etc.) and the politics of technology (the legality of self driving cars, etc.) are perfectly welcome.

I think that almost everyone comes to this site for science news. I think political topics can be generated by science news. The focus of this site is science news. Sometimes it will also contain political ramifications. If you are sensitive to this, just scroll down to another article. Some of us would like to address the political fallout of our rapidly changing culture.

Wow, everyone on this chain is so missing the point. The purpose of this site was, I thought, to promote interest in a particular slice of science. It has done a wonderful job of that. Getting into politics is fine, as long as it is from a scientific point of view, i.e. how polling impacts elections, what are the trends that have shifted the voting population, etc. But getting into economic predictions based upon the outcome of an election is just plain stupid. Ask your self this. Which is more complex, the game of poker, or the economy of the world? I’m guessing you answered the economy. Now, If you want to scientifically look at poker, you can do that. But the moment you say “John should hold the two jacks he was dealt. if he does so he will win this hand”, you have moved from being a scientist to be an idiot. The science of poker, and the science of the economy, are both based upon equations that feature both probability and the reactions of other intelligent agents (who are NOT in your control!) as significant features in the outcome. When someone who is considered a serious and significant figure in the world of science starts to drift off into making predictions of systems like the economy based upon ‘hunches’ or ‘guesses’ (and get real, no one knows exactly what the compromise on the fiscal cliff will actually be, they’re just guessing), they are doing a huge disservice to their position in the world of science.

Funnily enough, the censored article was the only one I didn’t read yesterday. I’m totally apathetic when it comes to present day politics, and find that most election campaigns (and discussion of them) descend into petty name-calling and playground fights. I think my interest will only be renewed when radical change is afoot.

I didn’t have to look far for Hedges to explain why these items had to be censured. Good job Ms editor!!

“The astute explorations of the pathology of power, however, are buried in the avalanche of Disneyfied popular culture and nationalist cant. The elite deeply fears any art, literature, philosophy, poetry, theology and drama that challenge the assumptions and structures of authority. These disciplines must appear to the public only in bastardized forms, packaged as froth, entertainment or sentimental drivel that celebrates the established hierarchy.”

Math is important. You can’t persistently spend more than you earn and borrow the shortfall. Interest on the federal debt is now $200 billion a year. It will soon rise to $600 billion, which is more than the defense budget.

The US has been one of the most innovative cultures in history. But it cannot survive insolvency.

This isn’t politics. It’s math. And it’s probably too late to do anything about it now.

I am more or less in the same spot as melajara and Scott and am saddened that I apparently won’t be able to read your article any more. On a meta-level, I feel that transhumanism has a blind spot that deserves reflection: I think anyone that enjoyed basic education in the philosophy of science will have to agree that discussing scientific issues pretending as if science would be completely unrelated to the social structure in which it is embedded is ideological. While very good points are made as to why technological progress should be made, the perspective of a number of transhumanist thinkers, to me, seems to be rather poorly developed when it comes to political and social implications of said technological progress – as well as the consideration of the telos of technology in today’s societies.

I’m sorry you removed your political post, I had no time to read it yesterday and wanted to read it now. Freedom of speech is one of the best example why America is a great country, it is very bad you felt compelled to auto-censure.

It is such a pity that when the world changed so much and most for the good part for the last 2500 years, the political institutions are still directly inherited, even in naming, from the Greco-Roman time. There is so little evolution here and those institutions are so obsolete. I’m thinking more and more about what could be a proper refoundation for them now that we have the technology to converge to a global hive where every mind virtually can be in touch with every other ones. But yes, there is still this terrible burden of building up everywhere power hierarchies, a sad inheritance of our simian past.

I hope you’ll make your political contributions available back or, by default, leave a link to another forum/blog where you are making them available, thanks.

@Melajara : “It is such a pity that when the world changed so much and most for the good part for the last 2500 years, the political institutions are still directly inherited, even in naming, from the Greco-Roman time.ere…”

Are you kidding!?

So, just a curious question, since I never thought of asking directly: Why do you think the USA ()not America^^) is a great country?

As an American I’m biased, so forgive me if I’m insensitive to the experiences of other countries. We are a little over 330 million people, yet we consume tthe vast portion of the worlds resources. I think that’s bad, but it does speak about our strength. England was a great superpower, that tried to rule the world. We are a great superpower which leaves the rest of the world sovereign. Unfortunately we let our corporations run amuck, and they tend to take advantage of other nations weakness. Overall we try to be helpful to the world, but because we are free here, some aspects take advantage of other nations. Hopefully we try to stay true to our stated goals of promoting freedom around the world.

@Bri:
No need to apologize for anything.I asked for an honest opinion, and I more generally asked Americans (presuming mel to be one).If I wanted just one kind of biased answer, I’d better go to the respective places (e.g muslim sites etc).

Misc: Well, 330 million is the biggest population of any developed nation.
I disagree with the sovereignity claim:)

Thank you for your answer.I hope you don’t mind if I ask two follow-up questions!?

Could you please tell me what you mean by free?
I myself consider myself free, too, in some sense.

@Mr.X: I don’t mind the questions. I like our exchanges between you, Marcos and myself. As I said, living in America tends to make me be biased. I appreciate your candor in criticizing the US. It’s hard for us to see how we are perceived abroad. In America we believe in freedom in theory. In reality we are limited in many ways. Many other nations around the world are not free at all. Much of the Arab world was oppressed by despotic rulers. We even bolstered many of them, much to our regret. The Shah of Iran is an example. The Vietnam war was started with good intentions by international interests, but turned into a war that we greatly regretted. It’s hard to do the right thing. Even the best of intentions can go wrong. My view of America, as it relates to you, is that we support whatever actions you do in your sovereign country, to live your life to it’s fullest potential. We can disagree on many things, particularly cultural practices, but overall, Americans want a world full of people, that aren’t oppressed, and that can achieve satisfying happiness. During our revolutionary war, we had a number of individuals that expressed this intent. One statement that really bears this out is,” I may disagree with what you say, but I will give my life, for the right for you to say it”. We try to embrace other opposing ideas, and cultures. That really is a central tenet of American philosophy, even if we don’t always do that.

Not at all. First consider that the political institutions from the founders were inherited from the Enlightenment period much admiring antic institutions (as e.g. the Roman Senate).
Now consider that the Greeks invented or experimented about all known political regimes (monarchy, tyranny, timocracy, aristocracy, oligarchy, plutocracy, democracy and various mixes of those canonical forms) and did this already before the fourth century decadence starting around the end of the Peloponnesian war (404 B.C.) or if you are a little bit more indulgent after the annexation of the Greek (free) cities to the unfolding Macedonian empire after the battle of Chaeronea (338 B.C.)] and then were superseded by Rome after the end of the first Punic war (241 B.C.).

Rome for around six centuries practically defined what it is to be an empire.
Of course there were other ones before Rome, but Rome was very elaborate in the system it defined at the foreign policy level with direct conquests preceded by protectorates preceded itself by more intense commercial exchanges with the regions about to be dominated across the Mediterranean Sea (as the conquest of Gaul, Britain, Germany and current central Europe countries [Pannonia, Dacia and Mesia provinces] were more ruthless).

In doing so and extending its “imperium”, Rome, internally morphed from a censitarian republic to an institutionalized dictatorship where the “emperors” for about one century insisted to be called only “Princeps” or primus inter pares when presiding the Senate but nevertheless had an elaborate “executive” administration to practically rule over the empire, independently of the Senate.

In doing so, is also Rome which defined the partition of the three pillars of government (executive, judicial, and legislative) to be as independent as possible and, for the judicial part, did so more successfully in the republican period (from the fifth to the first century B.C.) than later in the imperial period .

Yes, believe me, all the usual political institutions we are facing now were already in place in the antic world. But at that time, in a mostly oral civilization, rhetoric was much more elaborated than it is now.

Don’t believe people are more clever now, they just have many more outlets to express themselves, but the cognitive resources being limited, this expansion has been acquired against a loss of depth in the mastery of other domains.

The art of convincing people, to argue, to inspire and the tricks to do so were never more elaborate than in the Alexandrian period, inasmuch as this was an art transmitted by a special type of educators for aspiring orators, the “rhetors”, some even exaggerated, perusing too ornate forms of discourse, this was called the “Asiatic style”. This art and technique later was simplified when readapted from Greek to Latin but then it did not evolve much for centuries.

Now to answer your question, actually America is a great country inasmuch it is not oblivious of all this heritage, and as such, I was very happy to listen to the victory speech of Barack Obama yesterday. It was a moving one, very inspired, a true speech (albeit a simple one) in the classic spirit, one of the kind leaders used to deliver to the people, already 2500 years ago ;-)

Thanks for your detailed answer, but I most correct you in one thing – the Roman empire never conquered Germany, and most of central Europe escaped their conquest.

Rhetors: Don’t forget sophists.We have some here, it seems.

Executive, legislative, judicative: Funny enough, we learned this at school, although my country doesn’t take it too seriously.

I agree with your sentiment about the cleverness of people.There skill in mnemonics, rhetorics etc were much higher, due to the technological level at that time making such skills valuable.

Anyway, I was hinting at the fact that these ancient governments are not exactly what we would call democracy.No vote for women, young people(!?), those who have to work and can’t afford to stop for some days, “forigners”, etc.

Thanks for your answer, and have a nice day:)

Ps: Concerning obama- I always thought about it like I think about a bus with a given route, the driver may change, the course (overall) not.

“the Roman empire never conquered Germany”. Of course, Germany is a modern country ;-)

I should have said Rome conquered part of the Gaulish tribes calling themselves Germans and the actual territory seized was sealed by the limes or Hadrian’s Wall, but, hey, Mr picky, this was just a Grand Tour of a few paragraphs, LOL

My main point was to emphasize how little the main political institutions evolved in comparison with science and technology. In a fully interconnected and interdependent world this hiatus soon enough will be unbearable.

Hence, those institutions have to radically evolve ASAP, but, anyway, they will be wiped out with the Singularity ;-)

Well, remember the time British Canada conquered the USA after being attacked without any reason but their peacefulness? So much for being picky.

The south Germans were no Gaulish tribes.Or do you have a source for this claim?

Rome defined was it means to be an empire: Western-centric, what about China or Indian kingdoms!?

I guess I wasn’t being picky, else I had written your tour was besides the point, since you only talked about “the ancients” but did not show how your modern institutions are the same as theirs;)

My main point was, that the ancients never had anything we living today would accept as being democratic.Therefore, our institutions evolved, given that we all seem to presume to be in possession of freedom, to some degree.Else we wouldn’t feel the need to attribute it to someone else because we, for example, romanticize the Romans;)

You wrote: Directly inherited.Later you say: Through the enlightenment period that admired…

Do you know this “telephone game”!?This kind of direct inheritance?

“Freedom of speech is one of the best example why America is a great country”:

I know no developed country where you don’t have at least as much freedom of speech as you guys.I know many if which you can say and do much more, e.g the scandinavian countries.

For example:In the USA you can get sued for everything.You have to use political correctness.I mean, read modern American books: A person becomes a “she”, regardless of gender.Or you have to use the plural- instead of he, which was the historical choice and just so happens to be much shorter.Someone who is retarded becomes differently abled (implicating other skills).

Now you may say, you don’t have to use these expressions, if you are willing to take the flak.But, I don’t see any difference between the USA and other countries concerning this (in fact, we have less “subvented” euphemisms in Europe, ).

Anyway: What I really wanted to ask- how do you think new /evolved institutions should look?

You hinted at a global hive, I don’t think redirecting our/your/anyones institutations towards “interconnectedness” is a good idea at the moment.A democracy needs a demos, the forming of which would need some time.

Ps: “In total, 7,225,800 adults were under correctional supervision (probation, parole, jail, or prison) in 2009 — about 3.1% of adults in the U.S. resident population.

In addition, there were 70,792 juveniles in juvenile detention in 2010.”

@Mr.X: you have a very backward view of the war of 1812. The British instigated it with there naval blockade of trade between the North American continent and France. The US thought that the Canadians would want freedom from British rule. It was British at the time and they were fighting the French. Quebec still speaks French. There wasn’t a lot of effort to colonize Canada, it was ment to liberate them. Britain made a successful naval blockade during the conflict, but didn’t always win in battle. They never kicked our butts, but they did rule the seas. You seem to have a strong anti American bias in many of your posts. I think it clouds your opinion of us. In reference to freedom. During our revolution we adopted many French attitudes in terms of liberty, or freedom. Unfortunately many have eroded. As for empires there were many. The Persian, Chinese, Indian, are but a few. Alexander formed the basis that later became the Roman Empire. I would still call them the definitive empire, but all empires fade with time. Their system of governance was it’s defining point. The others tended to coalese and subjugate. Roman turned there holdings into an Effiecient machine, where all roads lead to Roman. As to the Germanic people at that time, one can only describe them as tribal.

How can a view of history be backward!?1812 in my mind is always about Napoleon btw.Ask Canadians what they think..;)

This stuff about a naval blockade: Maybe you just want to look it up.Your leadership thought, because of the war in Europe, Britian would not defend Canada.

I just wanted to show how these “details”, conquered or not conquered feel when one speaks about ones own people.The commentar was meant to provocate (a success), not represent my opinion.

They really kicked your butts, burned down your white house, conquered places without fighting since your soldiers just gave up.But in a sense, and this is hard for many of you, they didn’t kick your ass since you weren’t even in the planning:)

The “Quebecois” rather lived with the British than with you guys, because they saw how you treated the native indians and slaves, after all your talk of freedom.

Really, your country isn’t exactly known as harbinger of freedom for others, and it is not anti-american to say that all this feel-good we’re great and nice and “our shit don’t stink” is annoying.Btw: I am not refering to the answers I got because I asked, but to a general tendency of “Americans” to always “know” who is the “good” one (their side, always).

There was a famous moment when an American general or sth like that rode to a Franco-canadian leader and yelled he was there to free them.The Canadian got angry at the insult “he was not stupid!?), pulled the gun of a subordinate and shot him.

The Germanic tribes may have been tribal, but that doesn’t make them “French” (which was what I disagreed with).They may not have been as primitive as you may think, but they can’t compare to the Greeks for example (Romans “stole” much of their higher cultural attributes from Greece).

The Chinese didn’t subjugate their empire anymore than the Romans.

I don’t have a strong anti-American bias, truth is you guys often don’t know much about history and think in black and white propaganda terms. Do you really believe your governemnt gives a damn about freedom in Syria, Iran,Iraq, Russia etc!?

Tell me where I said something that was grounded in “Anti-americanism” and not facts.Nonetheless, I’ll always try to account for this (since I guess, you’d be right in some sense).

I could say the same about you guys (a question- is this too informal, you guys!?): Despite the fact that Europe does overwhelmingly well in science and the financial crisis, like all these crisises before, came from the USA many of you are still extremely arrogant towards us (Euro-trash, Euro-crisis, Old-continent etc).Maybe you are anti-european!?

Ps: The Germanic people may have been tribal, but that doesn’t make them French.It’s not as if I’m jealous not or sth, I’d rather live today as German than as a Greek or Italian person.Of course, they can dwell in their glorious past (ever spoken to a Greek person). ;)

@ Amara:
The reaction of -some- of the KurzweilAI-readers to the articles you posted was ridiculous. I read them and found them interesting, even where I disagreed. One can decide for themselves how seriously to take something, and the way they decided to take offence was unnecessary.

I suppose a lot of people take politics very personally, to the point that they get offended by the mere existence of contrary views. But especially when an article makes strange or nonsensical statements, couldn’t one accept it for it’s novelty value, and as an insight in the mind of others, instead of being so dismayed?

As far as I’m concerned, you did nothing wrong whatsoever, Editor. Perhaps I’d even support having a process such as this once in a while, to filter out the overly sensitive, agressive, narrow-minded folk. It’s a shame you felt pressured into taking anything down.

One could even print out such articles and use the paper to wipe one’s backside if one wanted to stretch the rationalization factor. But why bother? And why have some Marxist Mush paraded out in a forum that wasn’t designed for that. I get enough of that crap from other places. I don’t want to see it here.

very clever daniel, a “backside” reference with “marxist” thrown in for good measure. and such a solid cogent argument. but i think you’re at the wrong website. here’s a link for you: http://www.americannaziparty.com/.

Well, I wonder what he means by Marxist? It seems he has his own idiosyncratic meaning/ or intersubjective meaning (if it is some political groups jargon, prbly right-wing) for the word.Poor Marx (though it seems he was an unfriendly person).

There is a lot of political rhetoric that twists the meaning of these terms. It’s really an example of name calling. This poster is highly charged emotionally. I would expect him to distort other terms and facts. It’s hard to talk rationally with someone who uses such vulgar images to express himself. Only a fool argues with a fool.

Any American using the words “Marxist” or “socialist” should throw up automatic red flags for thinking people, as most of the people using those words these days have no idea what they mean. They’re simply catch-all “bad words” designed to scare the “patriots” and “free thinkers”.

Tragically, the irony is lost on them.

Calling Obama a socialist or a Marxist is offensive to socialists and Marxists.

WRT the original issue, personally, I prefer science and tech to be politics-free, because science is about objective analysis and exploration, and politics is anything but.

Unfortunately, the current economic crisis will not subside. And the future won’t pay for itself.

We are in this mess because our government officials, politicians, law-makers, and investors are greedy. They get re-elected, breaks on mortgages and refinances, campaign funding, freebies from lobbyists, and million-dollar bonuses (from failing companies) while the tax-payer foots the bill. We are being scammed by the largest Ponzi scheme in history. The constant de-regulation of the financial sector, lobbied by those who stand to benefit, had their run on our wallets. Bank bailouts, mergers, stimulus packages … all opportunities for skimming off the top. While Joe Shmoe pays the difference.

Those in charge of regulating have their fingers in the same pot. How do you stop the scam, if everyone on top is on the take. Educate yourself and understand why we are in this crisis. This has happened in the past, and will continue.

Figure it out for yourself, hop onto Wikipedia and learn about the causes to the recent global financial crisis. Or just watch a good documentary, I recommend “Inside Job”.

Amen to that! The only way we can get out of this is if we learn the truth and unite to affect real change. The technologies of abundance are on the way, but the upper classes want to stop us from benifiting. It will hurt their bottom line. Web sites like this are a boon for us, cause we can fond ways to affect change for the common man, not just the well connected.

Agree on the low probability of scientific advance (driven in large part by innovative business growth) and this administrations policies. NASA has been re-directed, funds that should be used to stimulate basic research growth are being directed (poorly) to commercialing unproven technologies, etc. The coming fiscal cliff, tax increases, centralized healthcare and regulatory burdens are going to smother innovation for the foreseeable future. What a freaking disaster. So much for democracy being a rational debate of ideas. Instead machine politics won. We haven’t stepped forward, we just fell way back.

@Amara: I’m sorry that you feel compelled to remove the post. There really should be no reason for someone to be offended by a frank discussion of political ideas. They are very relevant to all technological advances. One of the biggest changes that the Singularity will bring, is it’s effects on all things political. As Ray has written, the Singularity will change the very fabric of society. There is no escaping it’s ramifications to world politics. It is a shame that you have given in to the closed minded people who can’t be open in their dialogues, on these essential topics. This forum can be focused on purely scientific matters, but whether we like it or not. The political aspects will need to be addressed. For humanities sake, may we all find the strength to co front these issues, without being offended.

Oh, that’s so political of you!!! Just teasing!! Me personally, I don’t think he would do it.. He might bluster about it, but it would be an up hill battle. He has to get congresses approval and the UN. Then there is the costs in money and lives. Isreal is our biggest worry. They won’t declare war. That would be suicidal. Especially with the new leader in Egypt. They would bomb the nuclear facilities. That would prompt Iran to declare war. They would have the backing of most Arab nations, and China, and Russia. The sanctions are having a terrible effect on Iran. In the long run, they are alienating them from us. Our biggest concerns are China and Russia. Iran has little power other than their oil. China is very aggressive, and wants to be a world player. If we slowly withdrew our trade with them. They would loose most of the wind from their sails. Any development in robots will eventually do this. I hope that they do try for the moon. They are impetuous, and that would drain their financial surplus. Near earth commerce is our only course till robotic systems can prepare the moon for bases.. It would be far wiser to declare the moon to be for all humans and nations, so there isn’t a war over it’s resources, as scant as they are. We need a stronger international political system. We need to unify humanity. All our foreign policies should be directed to mediate, and mitigate wars, not to posture our superior military. We appear very bellicose and arrogant.

Sadly, I felt like feeding a troll, yesterday, Mr. X. I am amazingly impressed you linked any useful information whatsoever, usually you snipe with your own strawman after strawman. Thank you for actually supporting your rhetoric with something more than emphasis and reiteration.

@Mr.X: as I remember, the worst war in history was started in Germany. It cost over 20 million lives. Nobody is going to touch that figure for a long time, unless the world decides it wants another one. Bush was a jerk for starting his wars. It still is a fraction of the toll that WWII caused. For someone who is always telling others to read up on history, tell me the numbers from all of Americas Wars, that it started!

Arabs hate Persians, Jews, Negros, Chinese and Christians. One version of Muslim hates another version of Muslim. Liberals hate Conservatives. Vegetarians think they are superior to carnivores. You could go on for days like this. Only hope for humans is A.I. Humans are the robots that must be controlled.

Moore’s Law would beg to differ. By now you should already know that.. just by being on this site really but also for your alleged 40 years of “experience” reading “stuff” about the singularity. lol were you reading the same page over and over?

I’m fifty two. I’ve only been reading about the singularity for about one year. I agree with Ray that the pace of technological is irrespective of political influence. My point is that the singularity will change all our political systems. We need to discuss politics in order to adapt it to the changing world. I thought that was apparent in my posts.

I thought the video was interesting. It shows that traditional classrooms with a teacher at the head of the class will be augmented with high technology projection screens. I think the readers of this blog would not have gotten so bent out of shape by the article if this were not an election day. In light of that, it is somewhat understandable. Every one really appreciates the postings and short descriptions on this blog. Who ever wins let this be a blog where we can peacably discuss emerging technological trends. I think we are all thankful for Amara’s work.

….so tempting to confuse perception with facts…. especially if it helps my agenda(s).

Interesting for me to watch websites with active forums that used to be considered sources of respected news /info in the past, are now nothing more than advertising vehicles and so the more eyes the better. Sex, religion and politics are the most sensitive topics that get the most comments/reactions (good and bad) and thus for websites like this where it is not about the drama, it can prove an unwelcome distraction for so many looking to avoid exactly what is so common elsewhere.

As a fan of this site I have been impressed both with the scientific focus of the articles here as well as the increased frequency and how current they are. Keep up the good work.

As is true of any media outlet. These are examples of perveyors of propaganda. Every statement should be viewed as biased. It take criticality to weigh through the spin. In the end, it’s all a matter of perspective.

It’s kind of sad that prople can’t have a rational discussion about religion or politics without it getting out of hand. I really hope that social evolution of open-mindedness and new ideas can take place soon without it becoming a battleground.

Remember, it You and I both have 1 dollar, we can exchange them and we each still have 1 dollar. But if we each have 1 idea and we exchange them, then we each end up with 2 ideas.

So spot on. We are getting there, trust the various communities out there. I’ve had enough exposure to some of the current progressive social groups to know that we are moving forward, and very quickly, to a world where brilliant ideas flow freely. All starts with our collective health though, and the health of our planet, which are both currently suboptimal, in broad terms. Cheapening solar/wind combined with lithium-air batteries, advances in food production, dissemination of healthcare knowledge, and widespread 3d printing to apply that knowledge will address many of these current planet/society health issues. Then on to higher places after those hit….genomic sequencing, brain mapping, real-time neurochemical testing, anti-aging supplements and wellness plans, regular MEG scans. The level of wellness that humans are capable of, and the perceptual experience of that wellness, I think are both things that every one of us underestimates, especially when it happens on a collective level.

Alas, but your dream is unattainable unless there were a way to make Democrats less ignorant/greedy/criminal — this is a long shot when things have been going the other way with little in the way of positive fundamentals. They have control of much of the government, most of the prominent media and entertainment, and most of the educational establishment. There is no room for conversation with liberal voters except perhaps at the margin (where they might be educable, grow up, be exposed to sensible ideas, etc.), which margin does leave room for improved politicians in 2016 after more irreparable damage is done, and after, likely, the world has slid irretrievably toward a new dark age…obviously, that’s not much to hope for.

The outlook for a positive Singularity is very low in an environment of a U.S. presidency, Senate, and soon Supreme court driven by a will to power and confiscation accompanied by the suppression of individuals with merit. Obviously, the continued destruction of the U.S. economy, its currency, and its leadership towards a stable and better world will at least slow technological development, but this horrific situation also greatly increases the chances that any technological improvements that do occur will be used for evil by governments and others.

There’s really no need to even mention a political affiliation here. They are all pretty much one in the same when they receive so much of their campaign money from large megacorps. The 2 party system is killing us by dividing us to be conqured. It would be better to uncouple traditional views into multiple platforms to give us real choices.